Hacker News Reader

Comment by lettergram | Hacker News Reader

Ah should have said “not criticize what the owners of the company does outside of work”

The open letter used work resources and hours to go after what their boss did outside of work. Worse, after being told to stop, they continued.

View on HN

You're allowed to discuss working conditions at work, it's protected by law. You're advocating for criminal behavior by suggesting they should be fired in retaliation for a protected category of organizing.

You might find more sympathy for your point of view if it were not enforced as criminally illegal behavior. Workers don't need to respect an illegal order just because it comes from their master - it's a free country with protected categories of speech.

Musk's tweets aren't working conditions.

> discuss working conditions

Which part of the open letter discusses working conditions?[1] It's about how they don't want to work for a company owned by a person expressing their opinion in the public sphere because it causes embarrassment in their own social spheres being voluntarily associated with that.

The court case is now about them demanding to have their jobs reinstated to a company owned by that exact same person where absolutely nothing has changed.

I agree that workers should have freedom of speech, but the owner of the company they work for also has that same right, a right they oppose and which seems to be the root of all their problems leading to this case.

Freedom of speech was never freedom from consequences was it.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk...

> Which part of the open letter discusses working conditions?

The sections regarding unacceptable behavior seem like potential candidates:

> SpaceX’s current systems and culture do not live up to its stated values, as many employees continue to experience unequal enforcement of our oft-repeated “No Asshole” and “Zero Tolerance” policies. This must change.

> [snip]

> Define and uniformly respond to all forms of unacceptable behavior. Clearly define what exactly is intended by SpaceX’s “no-asshole” and “zero tolerance” policies and enforce them consistently. SpaceX must establish safe avenues for reporting and uphold clear repercussions for all unacceptable behavior, whether from the CEO or an employee starting their first day.

So that raises an interesting question. If part of the letter was about working conditions, and part was about Elon tweeting, can they legally be fired for the second part of the open letter despite the existence of the first?

This is my reading and might be off base, but it seems like they’re saying that Elon is undermining the “no assholes” and “zero tolerance” policies with his very loud and visible opinions. As long as Elon is seen as BEING SpaceX, his dismissive attitude towards things like sexual harassment will make it difficult to enforce policies against that sort of behavior. That’s why they asked SpaceX to distance itself from Twitter Elon.

Do those “no assholes” and “zero tolerance” policies apply to employee behavior outside work?

does a ceo or worker represent their company when making public statements on media platforms?

Legally? I don't believe so but I'm not a lawyer.

What's your opinion? Do you allow ceos to have private lives?

Catchphrases aside, freedom of speech has always been about freedom from (specific categories of) consequences. That is the entire point. For example, the First Amendment protects you from most consequences imposed by the government, such as being sent to jail, or even lesser consequences like being fired from a government job (depending). Analogously, in the employment context, “freedom of speech” would have to include freedom from being fired for that speech or it would be quite meaningless.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com